Monthly Archives: November 2010

The article proves from Quran that Hell would reamin for eternal and thereby discarding false arguments of scholars against this view

And the Trumpet will be blown – that will be the Day whereof warning (had been given) (i.e. the Day of Resurrection).

And every person will come forth along with an (angel) to drive (him) and an (angel) to bear witness.

(It will be said to the sinners): “Indeed you were heedless of this. Now We have removed from you your covering, and sharp is your sight this Day!”

And his companion (angel) will say: “Here is (this Record) ready with me!”

(Allah will say to the angels): “Both of you throw into Hell every stubborn disbeliever (in the Oneness of Allah, in His Messengers).

“Hinderer of good, transgressor, doubter,

“Who set up another ilah (god) with Allah. Then both of you cast him in the severe torment.” (Surah Qaf: 20-26)

QUESTION: Will the torment of the people of Hell in Hell be neverending, or will there come a time when it will end?.

Praise be to Allaah. The people of Hell will remain in Hell being tormented without end. This is indicated by a great deal of evidence from the Quraan and Sunnah.

Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen was asked: Is Hell eternal or will it come to an end?

He replied:

What is definite is that it is eternal, and no other view is known among the salaf. Hence the scholars made this one of their tenets of faith, so that we believe that Hell is eternal and will last forever. This is a matter concerning which there is no doubt, because Allaah has mentioned the eternal nature of Hell in three places in the Quraan:

1  Verily, those who disbelieve and did wrong [by concealing the truth about Prophet Muhammad and his message of true Islamic Monotheism written in the Tawraatt (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel) with them]; Allaah will not forgive them, nor will He guide them to any way.

Except the way of Hell, to dwell therein forever[Nisa 4:168-169]

2  Verily, Allaah has cursed the disbelievers, and has prepared for them a flaming Fire (Hell)

Wherein they will abide for ever[Ahzaab 33:64]

3  and whosoever disobeys Allaah and His Messenger, then verily, for him is the fire of Hell, he shall dwell therein forever[Jinn 72:23]

If Allaah had mentioned the eternal nature of Hell in one place, that would have been sufficient, so how about if He has mentioned it in three places? It is strange that a group of scholars are of the view that Hell will cease to exist, based on false arguments which go against what is indicated by the Quraan and Sunnah, and they misinterpreted the meanings of the Quraan and Sunnah and said that the words dwell therein forever mean for as long as it exists.

How can this be correct? If they are to dwell therein forever, that means that Hell itself must last forever, as they will be in it. If a person is to dwell in some place forever, then the place where he will be must last forever as well, because if that place will cease to exist then he cannot dwell forever. The verse is very clear, and the arguments which go against the text are to be rejected.

This difference of opinion which was narrated from a few scholars is to be rejected, because it goes against the clear text which every believer must believe in.

Whoever goes against it because of some argument that he comes up with may be excused before Allaah. But whoever studies the texts of the Quraan and Sunnah will know that the view that Hell will last forever is the truth which cannot be ignored.

Majmoo Fataawa Ibn Uthaymeen, 2/55-56

It says in Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daaimah:

There is a great deal of evidence in the Quraan and Sunnah to show that Hell will never cease to exist, and that the kaafireen will abide in Hell forever and will never come out of it. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

This, because you took the Revelations of Allaah (this Quraan) in mockery, and the life of the world deceived you. So this Day, they shall not be taken out from there (Hell), nor shall they be returned to the worldly life (so that they repent to Allaah, and beg His Pardon for their sins)[al-Jaathiyah 45:35]

Surely, those who disbelieved in Our Ayaat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.), We shall burn them in Fire. As often as their skins are roasted through, We shall change them for other skins that they may taste the punishment[al-Nisa 4:56]

but he whom He sends astray, for such you will find no Awliyaa (helpers and protectors) besides Him, and We shall gather them together on the Day of Resurrection on their faces, blind, dumb and deaf; their abode will be Hell; whenever it abates, We shall increase for them the fierceness of the Fire.

That is their recompense, because they denied Our Ayaat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) and said: When we are bones and fragments, shall we really be raised up as a new creation?[al-Isra 17:97]

But those who disbelieved (in the Oneness of Allaah  Islamic Monotheism) and denied Our Ayaat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.), they will be the dwellers of the Fire, to dwell therein forever. And worst indeed is that destination[al-Taghaabun 64:10]

and whosoever disobeys Allaah and His Messenger, then verily, for him is the fire of Hell, he shall dwell therein forever[al-Jinn 72:23]

Verily, the Mujrimoon (criminals, sinners, disbelievers) will be in the torment of Hell to abide therein forever.

(The torment) will not be lightened for them, and they will be plunged into destruction with deep regrets, sorrows and in despair therein.

We wronged them not, but they were the Zaalimoon (polytheists, wrongdoers).

And they will cry: O Malik (Keeper of Hell)! Let your Lord make an end of us. He will say: Verily, you shall abide forever.

Indeed We have brought the truth (Muhammad with the Quraan) to you, but most of you have a hatred for the truth[al-Zukhruf 43:74]

And of mankind are some who take (for worship) others besides Allaah as rivals (to Allaah). They love them as they love Allaah. But those who believe, love Allaah more (than anything else). If only, those who do wrong could see, when they will see the torment, that all power belongs to Allaah and that Allaah is Severe in punishment.

When those who were followed disown (declare themselves innocent of) those who followed (them), and they see the torment, then all their relations will be cut off from them.

And those who followed will say: If only we had one more chance to return (to the worldly life), we would disown (declare ourselves as innocent from) them as they have disowned (declared themselves as innocent from) us. Thus Allaah will show them their deeds as regrets for them. And they will never get out of the Fire[al-Baqarah 2:165-167]

Verily, those who belie Our Ayaat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) and treat them with arrogance, for them the gates of heaven will not be opened, and they will not enter Paradise until the camel goes through the eye of the needle (which is impossible). Thus do We recompense the Mujrimûn (criminals, polytheists, sinners).

Theirs will be a bed of Hell (Fire), and over them coverings (of Hell-fire). Thus do We recompense the Zaalimoon (polytheists and wrongdoers)[al-Araaf 7:40-41]

But those who disbelieve (in the Oneness of Allaah  Islamic Monotheism), for them will be the fire of Hell. Neither will it have a complete killing effect on them so that they die nor shall its torment be lightened for them. Thus do We requite every disbeliever!

Therein they will cry: Our Lord! Bring us out, we shall do righteous good deeds, not (the evil deeds) that we used to do. (Allaah will reply:) Did We not give you lives long enough, so that whosoever would receive admonition could receive it? And the warner came to you. So taste you (the evil of your deeds). For the Zaalimoon (polytheists and wrongdoers) there is no helper[Faatir 35:36]

“Truly, Hell is a place of ambush A dwelling place for the Taaghoon (those who transgress the boundary limits set by Allaah, like polytheists, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allaah, hypocrites, sinners, criminals),They will abide therein for ages.Nothing cool shall they taste therein, nor any drink.Except boiling water, and dirty wound discharges An exact recompense (according to their evil crimes).For verily, they used not to look for a reckoning.But they belied Our Ayaat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, and that which Our Prophet brought) completely.And all things We have recorded in a Book.So taste you (the results of your evil actions). No increase shall We give you, except in torment” [al-Naba’ 78:21-30]

And there are other verses which all indicate that the kuffaar will abide in Hell for eternity and will never come out, and it will never cease to exist. When taken all together this view is very strong and there is no room for misinterpretation .

Muslims are commanded to fight unbelievers until they are either dead, converted to Islam, or in a permanent state of subjugation under Muslim domination. Allowing people of other faiths to live and worship independently of Islamic rule is not an option.

The Qur’an:

Sura (9:29) – “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” Suras 9 and 5 are the last “revelations” that Muhammad handed down.

Sura (9:5) “But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them…” Prayer and charity are among the Five Pillars of Islam, as salat and zakat.

Reply

Abul Kasem is quoting same verse again and again, We already replied(from the article of Ansar al Adl) verse 9 of Surah Tauba, see replies here under

Regarding Forced Converstions Islam is clear It is mentioned in Qur`an Surah al Bqarah ayah 256 “There is no Compulsion in Religion”

Commentary of Jalalyan says: There is no compulsion in, entering into, religion. Rectitude has become clear from error, that is say, through clear proofs it has become manifest that faith is rectitude and disbelief is error: this was revealed concerning the Ans?r [of Medina] who tried to compel their sons to enter into Islam; so whoever disbelieves in the false deity, namely, Satan or idols (t?gh?t, false deity, is used in a singular and plural sense), and believes in God, has laid hold of the most firm handle, the tight knot, unbreaking, that cannot be severed; God is Hearing, of what is said, Knowing, of what is done.(end quote)

Ibne Kathir Commented

There is no compulsion in religion), meaning, “Do not force anyone to become Muslim, for Islam is plain and clear, and its proofs and evidence are plain and clear. Therefore, there is no need to force anyone to embrace Islam. Rather, whoever Allah directs to Islam, opens his heart for it and enlightens his mind, will embrace Islam with certainty. Whoever Allah blinds his heart and seals his hearing and sight, then he will not benefit from being forced to embrace Islam.”(end quote)

Secondly Abul Kasem is leaving behind Crusaders.

It is mentioned in “Tolerance and forced conversion during the Crusades by Josh Owens”

During the crusades religion was the main focal point. Each religion thought that they were doing things the right way according to God. Both Muslims and Christians tolerated the opposite religion to a certain extent.

However there was usually a hidden agenda. With the Muslims it was convert or pay us taxes, and with the Christians it seemed to be more, convert to Christianity or die. Christians really seem to be more violent than the Muslims when it comes to conversion.(end quote)

Even though I don’t believe fully in above article, but the thing is even Kuffar agreed that the reality is different.

Abul Kasem Quoted

Sura (9:12) – (Continued from above) “But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then are they your brethren in religion” This confirms that Muhammad is speaking of conversion to Islam.

Reply

Verse 12 is this one

[009:012] But if they violate their oaths after their covenant, and attack your religion with disapproval and criticism then fight (you) the leaders of disbelief (chiefs of Quraish – pagans of Makkah) – for surely their oaths are nothing to them – so that they may stop (evil actions).

Now let us see what the verse 6 to 12 says

[009:006] And if anyone of the Mushrikoon (polytheists, idolaters, pagans, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah) seeks your protection then grant him protection, so that he may hear the Word of Allah (the Quran), and then escort him to where he can be secure, that is because they are men who know not.

[009:007] How can there be a covenant with Allah and with His Messenger for the Mushrikoon (polytheists, idolaters, pagans, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah) except those with whom you made a covenant near Al-Masjid-al-Haram (at Makkah)? So long, as they are true to you, stand you true to them. Verily, Allah loves Al-Muttaqoon (the pious – see V.:).

[009:008] How (can there be such a covenant with them) that when you are overpowered by them, they regard not the ties, either of kinship or of covenant with you? With (good words from) their mouths they please you, but their hearts are averse to you, and most of them are Fasiqoon (rebellious, disobedient to Allah).

[009:009] They have purchased with the Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) of Allah a little gain, and they hindered men from His Way; evil indeed is that which they used to do.

[009:010] With regard to a believer, they respect not the ties, either of kinship or of covenant! It is they who are the transgressors.

[009:011] But if they repent, perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat) and give Zakat, then they are your brethren in religion. (In this way) We explain the Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) in detail for a people who know.

[009:012] But if they violate their oaths after their covenant, and attack your religion with disapproval and criticism then fight (you) the leaders of disbelief (chiefs of Quraish – pagans of Makkah) – for surely their oaths are nothing to them – so that they may stop (evil actions).(end quote)

Subhan`Allah how beautiful are the verses, These verses are regarding those who broke peace treaty, see even then Allah says if anyone of them seeks your protection then grant him protection, and hen Allah says escort him to where he can be secure. No where above Quranic ayahs says something regarding forced conversions.

Abul Kasem quoted

Sura (2:193) – “And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion be only for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrong-doers.” The key phrase is to fight until “religion be only for Allah.”

Reply by Brother Ansar al adl.

A classic and popular example of what Muslim scholars, like Dr. Jamal Badawi, call a cut and paste approach. Everything becomes so much easier for the Anti-Islamists when they remove the context. The solution for the Muslim is to simply replace the verse in its context:

2:190-194 Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loves not transgressors. And kill them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for persecution and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, kill them. Such is the reward of those who reject faith. But if they cease, God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God; but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression. The prohibited month, for the prohibited month, and so for all things prohibited, there is the law of equality. If then any one transgresses the prohibition against you, transgress ye likewise against him. But fear (the punishment of) God, and know that God is with those who restrain themselves.

How many times do we see the above verse repeating the message to make it clear? These verse were revealed at a time when Muslims of Madinah were under constant attack from the Makkans. An example would be when the Makkans conducted the public crucifixion of the companion of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), Khubaib bin Adi. These would be classified as ‘terrorist activities’ according to the modern usage of the term. So what does this verse say in this context? “Fight in the cause of God those who fight you”, “unless they (first) fight you there” – the context of this verse applies to those who initiate the attack against Muslims. And even after they attack, the verse makes it clear: “But if they cease, God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” And it also makes clear the purpose for what Muslims fight: “fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God”. It is the duty of Muslims to defend humanity from oppression and persecution and to establish justice. Muslims believe that God has placed us here on earth as his deputy or viceroy, and thus, it is our duty to enjoin the good and forbid the evil, to establish peace and justice in the land. Dr. Maher Hathout writes the following on verses 2:190-194:

These verses were applicable to a particular situation or if, hypothetically, the same situation was to be repeated Historically, fighting back against the aggressors was prohibited during the thirteen years of the Meccan period. After the migration to Medina and the establishment of the Islamic state, Muslims were concerned with how to defend themselves against aggression from their enemies. The aforementioned verses were revealed to enable them to protect the newly formed state by fighting in self-defence against those who fought them. However, the Quran clearly prohibits aggression. The verses explain that fighting is only for self-defence. Thus, a Muslim cannot commit aggression and kill innocent men, women, children, the sick, the elderly, monks, priests, or those who do not wish to fight. A Muslim is also mandated not to destroy plant life of livestock. (Hathout, Jihad vs. Terrorism; US Multimedia Vera International, 2002, p.49, emphasis added)

The historical context is something that must always be considered where developing an understanding of Qur’anic verses. Without knowing the circumstances behind the revelation, one cannot apply the verse as accurately. Shaykh Salman Al-Oadah writes about the general principles in Jihad:

Jihad can never be fought for worldly gain, for conquest, or even for revenge. Muslims must only fight to protect the lives, property, and freedoms of people, especially their freedom to worship Allah when that freedom is forcibly attacked. They are never allowed to attack innocent people, even when they are themselves attacked by the countrymen of those innocents. Any people that go against this established principle of Islamic Law and murder civilians are fighting against Islam and everything that it stands for. It is ludicrous for them to call this fighting a jihâd, a word that means striving in the cause of Islam. They are in fact murderers in the light of Islamic Law and should be treated as such. (SOURCE, emphasis added)

There are strict and detailed laws in Islam, which Muslims must follow carefully. A military Jihad must be performed under these regulations. Abdullah Yusuf Ali writes about verse 2:190:

War is only permissible in self-defence, and under well-defined limits. When undertaken, it must be pushed with vigour, but not relentlessly, but only to restore peace and freedom for the worship of God. In any case strict limits must not be transgressed: women, children, old and infirm men should not be molested, nor trees and crops cut down, nor peace withheld when the enemy comes to terms. (Yusuf Ali, The Holy Quran, Text, Translation and Commentary )

He then re-iterates the general principles behind Jihad in his commentary on verse 2:191:

In general, it may be said that Islam is the religion of peace, goodwill, mutual understanding, and good faith. But it will not acquiesce in wrong-doing, and its men will hold their lives cheap in defence of honour, justice, and the religion which they hold sacred. Their ideal is that of heroic virtue combined with unselfish gentleness and tenderness, such as is exemplified in the life of the Apostle. They believe in courage, obedience, discipline, duty, and a constant striving by all the means in their power, physical, moral, intellectual, and spiritual, for the establishment of truth and righteousness. (Yusuf Ali, The Holy Quran, Text, Translation and Commentary )

This is the true focus behind Jihad, and Muslims must never lose this focus. Jihad is solely for the purpose of aiding humanity and bringing justice and freedom to the oppressed. Therefore, all actions must be in-line with this focus and the strict regulations governing Jihad. The focus is to defend, not destroy. One who focuses on the betterment and aid of humanity will realize that destruction will never achieve this. Abdul Majid Daryabadi writes extensively on verse 2:190:

2:190 And fight in the way of Allah those who fight you  Violating the truce they themselves had signed. The Muslims, after having borne untold persecution with almost superhuman fortitude for years and years at the hands of the pagans of Makkah, are now for the first time enjoined to take to reprisals. For a full thirteen years the Muslims were subjected to relentless persecution in Mecca. The Prophet and his followers fled for life to Medina, but the enemy would not leave them alone in their refuge. They came to attack them within a year, and the first three battles were fought in the very locality which will whether the Prophet was an assailant or defendant (Headley, The Original Church of Jesus Christ and Islam, p. 155). The Makkans had signed a truce and were the first to break it. The words fight with those who fight you clearly show, firstly, that the Muslims were not the aggressors, and secondly, that those of the enemy who were not actual combatants  children, women, monks, hermits, the aged and the infirm, the maimed, and the like  had nothing at all to fear from the Muslim soldiery. It was in light of this express Divine injunction that the great Abu Bakr, the first Caliph, charged his troops into Syria, not to mutilate the dead, nor to slay old men, women, and children, nor to cut down fruit-trees, nor to kill cattle unless they were needed for food; and these humane precepts served like a code of laws of war during the career of Mohammadan conquest. (Bosworth Smith, Mohammed and Mohammedanism, p. 185). Has not Islam thus, in prescribing war against those who break Gods law, who challenge His righteous authority, and who fill the world with violence and injustice, made every concession short of the impossible? Has any code of military ethics been so chivalrous, so humane and so tender towards the enemy? The moral tone adopted by the Caliph Abu Bakr, in his instructions to the Syrian army, was, says a modern Christian historian, so unlike the principles of the Roman government, that it must have commanded profound attention from a subject people. Such a proclamation announced to Jews and Christians sentiments of justice and principles of toleration which neither Roman emperors nor orthodox bishops had ever adopted as the rule of their conduct (Finlay, Greece Under the Romans, pp. 367-368). (Daryabadi, The Glorious Quran, emphasis added)

Muhammad Asad explains verse 2:190 in the following manner:

This and the following verses lay down unequivocally that only self-defence (in the widest sense of the word) makes war permissible for Muslims. Most of the commentators agree in that the expression la ta’tadu signifies, in this context, “do not commit aggression”; while by al-mu’tadin “those who commit aggression” are meant. The defensive character of a fight “in God’s cause” – that is, in the cause of the ethical principles ordained by God – is, moreover, self-evident in the reference to “those who wage war against you”, and has been still further clarified in 22: 39 – “permission [to fight] is given to those against whom war is being wrongfully waged” – which, according to all available Traditions, constitutes the earliest (and therefore fundamental) Quranic reference to the question of jihad, or holy war (see Tabari and Ibn Kathir in their commentaries on 22: 39). That this early, fundamental principle of self-defence as the only possible justification of war has been maintained throughout the Quran is evident from 60: 8, as well as from the concluding sentence of 4: 91, both of which belong to a later period than the above verse. (Asad, The Message of the Quran, emphasis added)

And on verse 2:191, he states the following:

In view of the preceding ordinance, the injunction “slay them wherever you may come upon them” is valid only within the context of hostilities already in progress (Razi), on the understanding that “those who wage war against you” are the aggressors or oppressors (a war of liberation being a war “in God’s cause”). The translation, in this context, of fitnah as “oppression” is justified by the application of this term to any affliction which may cause man to go astray and to lose his faith in spiritual values (cf. Lisan al-Arab). (Asad, The Message of the Quran, emphasis added)

This extensive commentary on th is verse should sufficiently address all confusion and misconceptions that resulted from misquoting this verse.

Muslim (1:33) The Messenger of Allah said: “I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah…”

Reply

We can understand this hadith from other ahadeeth, because hadeeth is a commentry of another hadeeth, let us see how Prophet peace be uponhim practised

Sahih Muslim, Book 001, Number 0032: It is narrated on the authority of Jabir that the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded that I should fight against people till they declare that there is no god but Allah, and when they profess it that there is no god but Allah, their blood and riches are guaranteed protection on my behalf except where it is justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah, and then he (the Holy Prophet) recited (this verse of the Holy Qur’an):” Thou art not over them a warden” (lxxxviii, 22).

Ibne Kathir Commented : Thou art not over them a warden.) Ibn `Abbas, Mujahid and others said, “You are not a dictator over them.” This means that you cannot create faith in their hearts. Ibn Zayd said, “You are not the one who can force them to have faith.”

Allah says in Surah al e Imran 3:20

And if they argue with thee, (O Muhammad), say: I have surrendered my purpose to Allah and (so have) those who follow me. And say unto those who have received the Scripture and those who read not: Have ye (too) surrendered? If they surrender, then truly they are rightly guided, and if they turn away, then it is thy duty only to convey the message (unto them). Allah is Seer of (His) bondmen.

Abul Kasem quoted

Muslim (19:4294) – “When you meet your enemies who are polytheists [Christians…], invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them … If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them”

Reply

This is a misquotation, see full text

Sahih Muslim Book 019, Number 4294:

It has been reported from Sulaiman b. Buraid through his father that when the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) appointed anyone as leader of an army or detachment he would especially exhort him to fear Allah and to be good to the Muslims who were with him. He would say: Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war, do not embezzle the spoils; do not break your pledge; and do not mutilate (the dead) bodies; do not kill the children. When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. Then invite them to migrate from their lands to the land of Muhairs and inform them that, if they do so, they shall have all the privileges and obligations of the Muhajirs. If they refuse to migrate, tell them that they will have the status of Bedouin Muilims and will be subjected to the Commands of Allah like other Muslims, but they will not get any share from the spoils of war or Fai’ except when they actually fight with the Muslims (against the disbelievers). If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them. When you lay siege to a fort and the besieged appeal to you for protection in the name of Allah and His Prophet, do not accord to them the guarantee of Allah and His Prophet, but accord to them your own guarantee and the guarantee of your companions for it is a lesser sin that the security given by you or your companions be disregarded than that the security granted in the name of Allah and His Prophet be violated When you besiege a fort and the besieged want you to let them out in accordance with Allah’s Command, do not let them come out in accordance with His Command, but do so at your (own) command, for you do not know whether or not you will be able to carry out Allah’s behest with regard to them.(end)

First thing to note Abul Kasem quoted “When you meet your enemies who are polytheists [Christians…], Christians is not in Arabic nor in the translation, secondly Prophet peace be upon him is talking about War and why abul kasem missed these wordings, do not embezzle the spoils; do not break your pledge; and do not mutilate (the dead) bodies; do not kill the children, thirdly even in War Prophet peace be upon him is saying before war “When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. ” after all these courses Prophet peace be upon him is saying that then fight in the name of Allah. Prophet peace be upon him himself said

..Allah’s Apostle in one of his military expeditions against the enemy, waited till the sun declined and then he got up amongst the people saying, “O people! Do not wish to meet the enemy, and ask Allah for safety, but when you face the enemy, be patient, and remember that Paradise is under the shades of swords.” Then he said, “O Allah, the Revealer of the Holy Book, and the Mover of the clouds and the Defeater of the clans, defeat them, and grant us victory over them.”(Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 266l)

So clearly he said Do not wish to meet the enemy. Then abul Kasem quoted Bukhari (8:387) which is already replied before that is under the hadeeth Sahih Muslim, Book 001, Number 0033

Abul Kasem quoted

Bukhari (53:392) – “While we were in the Mosque, the Prophet came out and said, “Let us go to the Jews” We went out till we reached Bait-ul-Midras. He said to them, “If you embrace Islam, you will be safe. You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I want to expel you from this land. So, if anyone amongst you owns some property, he is permitted to sell it, otherwise you should know that the Earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle.”

Reply

Above hadith is regarding Jews of Khaybar (who tried to kill Prophet and were against Islam and Muslims), It is mentioned in Commentary of Sahih Bukhari Vol # 4 Page no: 524 by Muhammad Dawud Raaz (Rah)(Markazi Jamiyat Ahlul hadeeth hind), under the commentary of this hadith

Prophet peace be upon him intended to expel Jews in his life but he died. Umar RadhiAllahanho expelled them in his rule due to their continuous betrayl and Conspiracies (against Islam and Muslims).

Prophet peace be upon him said Bukhari Volume 4, Book 53, Number 391:Narrated ‘Abdullah bin ‘Amr:

The Prophet said, “Whoever killed a person having a treaty with the Muslims, shall not smell the smell of Paradise though its smell is perceived from a distance of forty years.”

Allah ordered Prophet peace be upon him in Surah 109 : Say: O disbelievers! I worship not that which ye worship; Nor worship ye that which I worship. And I shall not worship that which ye worship. Nor will ye worship that which I worship. Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion.

Surah 16:125: Invite (all) to the Way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious: for thy Lord knoweth best, who have strayed from His Path, and who receive guidance.

Also note that Prophet peace be upon him never killed anyone with his own hand, except Ubayy ibn Kahlaf who tried to kill Prophet peace be upon him, It is mentioned in Fatwa no: 20181 of Islam qa

Al-Bukhaari (4073) and Muslim (1793) narrated that Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: The anger of Allaah is most intense against a man who is killed by the Messenger of Allaah for the sake of Allaah (on the battlefield).

Al-Nawawi said:

For the sake of Allaah excludes one whom he kills as a hadd punishment or by way of legal retaliation (qisaas), because whoever is killed by the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) on the battle was intending to kill the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).

It is not known that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) killed anyone among the mushrikeen with his own hand apart from Ubayy ibn Khalaf.

That was narrated by Ibn Jareer and al-Haakim from Saeed ibn al-Musayyab and al-Zuhri (may Allaah have mercy on them). Ibn Katheer said in his Tafseer (2/296): its isnaad is saheeh.

Then abul kasem quoted Bukhari (2:24) which is already replied before that is under the hadeeth Sahih Muslim, Book 001, Number 0033

Then He quoted

Bukhari (59:643) – “Testify that none has the right to be worshipped except Allah, or else I will chop off your neck!” Words of a military leader that Muhammad sent on an expedition to destroy the local religion in Yemen.

Reply

This is full hadith

Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 643: Narrated Qais:

Jarir said “Allah’s Apostle said to me, “Won’t you relieve me from Dhul-Khalasa?” I replied, “Yes, (I will relieve you).” So I proceeded along with one-hundred and fifty cavalry from Ahmas tribe who were skillful in riding horses. I used not to sit firm over horses, so I informed the Prophet of that, and he stroke my chest with his hand till I saw the marks of his hand over my chest and he said, O Allah! Make him firm and one who guides others and is guided (on the right path).’ Since then I have never fallen from a horse. Dhul-l–Khulasa was a house in Yemen belonging to the tribe of Khatham and Bajaila, and in it there were idols which were worshipped, and it was called Al-Ka’ba.” Jarir went there, burnt it with fire and dismantled it. When Jarir reached Yemen, there was a man who used to foretell and give good omens by casting arrows of divination. Someone said to him. “The messenger of Allah’s Apostle is present here and if he should get hold of you, he would chop off your neck.” One day while he was using them (i.e. arrows of divination), Jarir stopped there and said to him, “Break them (i.e. the arrows) and testify that None has the right to be worshipped except Allah, or else I will chop off your neck.” So the man broke those arrows and testified that none has the right to be worshipped except Allah. Then Jarir sent a man called Abu Artata from the tribe of Ahmas to the Prophet to convey the good news (of destroying Dhu-l-Khalasa). So when the messenger reached the Prophet, he said, “O Allah’s Apostle! By Him Who sent you with the Truth, I did not leave it till it was like a scabby camel.” Then the Prophet blessed the horses of Ahmas and their men five times.

Prophet (peace be upon him) said this for house of an idol because in (Dhul khalsa) Kuffar and Polytheists made conspiracies against Islam, They made plans how to harm Prophet Kareem (peace be upon him)… They showed their enemity against Islam in every way, So to make the environment peaceful this was necessary. Islam never orders to dismantle the places of worship of other Religion and Nations in the time of Peace, During the time of Umar (RadhiAllahanho), He saved Churches of Dhimmi (one with whom we have a contract or treaty) Jews and Christians.(end quote)

Allah says [Quran 60:8-9]

Allah does not forbid you respecting those who have not made war against you on account of (your) religion, and have not driven you forth from your homes, that you show them kindness and deal with them justly; surely Allah loves the doers of justice.

It is only as regards those who fought against you on account of religion, and have driven you out of your homes, and helped to drive you out, that Allah forbids you to befriend them. And whosoever will befriend them, then such are the wrongdoers.

Abul Kasem quoted

Ibn Ishaq 959 – Then the apostle sent Khalid bin Walid to the Banu al-Harith and ordered him to invite them to Islam three days before he attacked them. If they accepted then he was to accept it from them, and if they declined he was to fight them. So Khalid set out and came to them, and sent out riders in all directions inviting the people to Islam, saying, ?If you accept Islam you will be safe.? So the men accepted Islam as they were invited. The text goes on to say that Khalid taught the al-Harith about Islam after their “conversion,” proving that it was based on fear of slaughter rather than a free and intelligent decision.

Again his source is anti Islamic website, secondly leave a side authenticity of above narration let us see what Prophet peace be upon him said regarding Banu al Harith.

Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 133: Narrated Abu Usaid:

The Prophet said, “The best of the Ansar’s families (homes) are those of Banu An-Najjar and then (those of) Banu ‘Abdul Ash-hal, then (those of) Banu Al-Harith bin Al-Khazraj and then (those of) Banu Sa’ida; nevertheless, there is good in all the families (houses) of the Ansar.” On this, Sad (bin Ubada) said, “I see that the Prophet has preferred some people to us.” Somebody said (to him), “No, but he has given you superiority to many.”(end)

Now see the hadith for the proof that Ansar were happy

Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 131:Narrated Zaid bin Al-Arqam: The Annwar said, “O Allah’s Apostle! Every prophet has his own followers and we have followed you. So will you invoke Allah to let our followers be considered from us (as Ansar too)?” So he invoked Allah accordingly.(end)

Banu Al Harith were Ansar’s and Imam Bukhari wrote whole Book on them in Sahih Bukhari “Merits of the Helpers in Madinah (Ansaar)”

He said

Social Drawback: Islam spread through Sufism is all crap. Its all their strategy to get time to increase their population. Muslims did all barbaric activity to convert non-muslims. The very base of ISLAM is to kill the non-muslim by anyway if he refuses to accept Islam.

Above Claim is again a clear lie of Abul Kasem INSHA`ALLAH I will prove first let us see what he claimed

Summary Answer: Muslims may not steal from each other. In fact, Muhammad had people’s hands cut off for that. But the same is not true of unbelievers. Property rights for them exist only at the discretion of their Muslim rulers. Unsubmissive infidels frequently had their property stolen from them by Muhammad’s warriors, which sometimes included wives and children

Reply

The basic Rule is a Muslim Can not steal from Non Mulims It is totally Prohibited, The only exception made by shareeah is the wealth of kaafirs who are waging war against the Muslims, That is killing them, Raping their Women etc see the evidence

It was narrated that al-Mugheerah ibn Shubah kept company with some people during the Jaahiliyyah. He killed them and took their wealth, then he came and entered Islam. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: As for your Islam, I accept it, and as for the wealth, I have nothing to do with it. According to a report narrated by Abu Dawood, As for your Islam, we accept it, and as for the wealth it is obtained through treachery, and we have no need of it.(Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 2583; Abu Dawood, 2765; classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Abi Dawood, 2403).

The phrase and as for the wealth, I have nothing to do with it means, I will not touch it because it was obtained through treachery. What we learn from this is that it is not permissible to take the wealth of the kuffaar by treachery when they have trusted you and granted you safety, because when people accompany one another (when travelling), they do so on the basis of mutual trust, and that trust should not be betrayed, whether the other person is a Muslim or a kaafir. The wealth of the kuffaar is only permissible in the case of combat and war. Perhaps the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) let him keep the wealth in the hope that the people of its owner might become Muslim, then he could return their wealth to them. Fath al-Baari, 5/341

When a Muslim enters dar al-harb (the non-Muslim lands) on peaceful terms, and finds himself in position to take something of their wealth, it is not permissible for him to take it, whether it is a little or a lot, because if he is safe from them, they should be safe from him, and because it is not permissible for him to take anything from them when they have given him safety except what it is permissible for him to take from the wealth of the Muslims and ahl al-dhimmah (non-Muslims living under the protection of the Muslim state). Wealth may be forbidden for a number of reasons:

If the owner is a Muslim

if the owner is (a non-Muslim) living under the protection of the Muslim state

if the owner is one with whom there is a peace deal, until the deal expires; such people are considered to be like ahl al-dhimmah as far as the sanctity of their wealth is concerned, until the deal expires. Al-Umm, 4/284

It is not right for a Muslim who is on peaceful terms with them to betray them, because betrayal is haraam. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: Every betrayer will have a banner by his backside on the Day of Resurrection, by which his betrayal will be known. If he betrays them and steals their wealth, and brings it to the Muslim lands, it is not right for a Muslim to buy from him if he knows about that, because he has obtained it in an evil manner, and buying from him is encouraging him in that, which it is not right for the Muslim to do. The basic principle in this matter is the hadeeth of al-Mugheerah ibn Shubah (may Allaah be pleased with him), when he killed his companions and brought their wealth to Madeenah and became Muslim, and asked the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) to take the khums of his wealth, and he said, As for your Islam, we accept it, and as for the wealth it is obtained through treachery, and we have no need of it. Al-Mabsoot, 10/96

Sura (5:38) – “As to the thief, Male or female, cut off his or her hands: a punishment by way of example, from Allah, for their crime: and Allah is Exalted in power.”

Sura (48:20) – “Allah promised you many acquisitions which you will take, then He hastened on this one for you and held back the hands of men from you, and that it may be a sign for the believers and that He may guide you on a right path.” Allah promises Muslims that they will profit materially in their war against unbelievers.

Reply

In first verse There is nothing which states stealing from Kuffar is allowed, second verse is talking about War

(Allah has promised you abundant spoils that you will capture,) refers to the spoils that Muslims earned up until this time, while,

?????????? ?????? ????????

(and He has hastened for you this,) means, the conquest of Khaybar. Al-`Awfi reported that Ibn `Abbas said,

?????????? ?????? ????????

(and He has hastened for you this,) means, “The peace treaty of Al-Hudaybiyyah.” Allah said,

???????? ???????? ???????? ?????????

(and He has restrained the hands of men from you,) meaning, `no harm that your enemies had planned against you, both fighting and warfare, touched you. Allah also restrained the hands of men, whom you left behind close to your families and children, from harming them,’

???????????? ??????? ?????????????????

(that it may be a sign for the believers,) with which they take heed and understand. Verily, Allah the Exalted and Most Honored shall help and protect the believers against all enemies, even though the believers are few in number. By doing so, the believers will come to know that Allah is truly the Knower of the consequences of all matters and that the best decisions are those which He prefers for His believing servants, even though these decisions might look unfavorable outwardly(end quote)

Abul Kasem said

Sura (33:27) – “And He caused you to inherit their land and their houses and their wealth, and land ye have not trodden. Allah is ever Able to do all things.” Referring again to the property of unbelievers, which is given to those Muslims who defeat them.

Reply

Again above verse is regarding Banu Quraiza

Ibn Kathir commented under 33:26

We have already noted that when the Confederates came and camped outside Al-Madinah, Banu Qurayzah broke the covenant that existed between them and the Messenger of Allah . This happened by the agency of Huyay bin Akhtab An-Nadari, may Allah curse him, who entered their stronghold and would not leave their leader, Ka`b bin Asad, alone until he agreed to break the covenant. Among the things that he said to him was, “Woe to you! This is the opportunity for glory. The Quraysh and their company of men from various tribes, and the Ghatafan and their followers, have come to you, and they will stay here until they eliminate Muhammad and his companions.” Ka`b said to him, “No, by Allah, this is the opportunity for humiliation. Woe to you, O Huyay, you are a bad omen. Leave us alone.” But Huyay kept trying to persuade him until he agreed to his request. He laid down the condition that if the Confederates went away without doing anything, he ?Huyay? would join them in their stronghold and would share their fate. When Banu Qurayzah broke their covenant and news of this reached the Messenger of Allah , he and the Muslims were very distressed by that. (end quote)

Abul kasem quoted

Bukhari (81:780) – The Prophet said, “The hand should be cut off for stealing something that is worth a quarter of a Dinar or more.”

Bukhari (81:792) – Narrated Aisha: “The Prophet cut off the hand of a lady, and that lady used to come to me, and I used to convey her message to the Prophet and she repented, and her repentance was sincere.”

(Those who were before you were destroyed because when an honorable person among them would steal, they would leave him. But, when a weak man among them stole, they implemented the prescribed punishment against him. By Him in Whose Hand is my soul! If Fatimah the daughter of Muhammad stole, I will have her hand cut off.) Quoted by Ibne Kathir under Surah 5 verse 39

secondly, If the Muslim commits any sin, whether stealing or anything else, then repents before the matter is referred to the judge, then he is spared the punishment in that case, and it is not permissible to punish him, because Allaah says concerning banditry (interpretation of the meaning):

The recompense of those who wage war against Allaah and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off from opposite sides, or be exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter.

Except for those who (having fled away and then) came back (as Muslims) with repentance before they fall into your power; in that case, know that Allaah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful[al-Maaidah 5:33-34]

Ibn Ishaq (764) – As for taking from unbelievers, perhaps the most illuminating example among many comes from the aftermath of the battle against the Khaybar as recorded by Muhammad’s earliest biographer. The Khaybar were a peaceful community of Jewish farmers who did not even know they were at war until Muhammad led his men against their town one morning, taking them by surprise and handily defeating them.

Not only did Muhammad take much of the town’s possessions and land, but he actually had the tribe’s treasurer, a man named Kinana, tortured until he gave up the location of hidden treasure. Muhammad then beheaded the man and “married” his traumatized widow, Safiyya (who passed through the hands of one of his lieutenant’s first due to the luck of the draw).

Reply

This is again a lie see replies by Brother Bassam Zawadi

a) Rebuttal to Silas’s Article “MUHAMMAD AND THE DEATH OF KINANA” by Bassam Zawadi

Bukhari (44:668) – “We were in the company of the Prophet at Dhul-Hulaifa. The people felt hungry and captured some camels and sheep (as booty)…” Muhammad said that Allah would always provide sustenance for those who believe in him. Stealing from non-Muslims was a legitimate means of fulfilling His promise.

Reply

Above is again a lie because that was not stealing They already had war booty with them, see the hadith

Bukhari Volume 3, Book 44, Number 684: Narrated Abaya bin Rifaa:

My grandfather, Rafi bin Khadij said, “We were in the valley of Dhul-Hulaifa of Tuhama in the company of the Prophet and had some camels and sheep (of the booty). The people hurried (in slaughtering the animals) and put their meat in the pots and started cooking. Allah’s Apostle came and ordered them to upset the pots, and distributed the booty considering one camel as equal to ten sheep. One of the camels fled and the people had only a few horses, so they got worried. (The camel was chased and) a man slopped the camel by throwing an arrow at it. Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Some of these animals are untamed like wild animals, so if anyone of them went out of your control, then you should treat it as you have done now.’ ” My grandfather said, “O Allah’s Apostle! We fear that we may meet our enemy tomorrow and we have no knives, could we slaughter the animals with reeds?” The Prophet said, “Yes, or you can use what would make blood flow (slaughter) and you can eat what is slaughtered and the Name of Allah is mentioned at the time of slaughtering. But don’t use teeth or fingernails (in slaughtering). I will tell you why, as for teeth, they are bones, and fingernails are used by Ethiopians for slaughtering. (See Hadith 668)

Abul Kasem said

Social Drawback: In non-Islamic countries huge number of Muslims involved in illegal activities.

Reply

He is speaking like Non Muslims were never involved in illegal activities, Let me give you some names

1. George W. Bush the biggest Terrorist who ordered to kill 1000s of Afghan and Iraqi Innocents

Praise be to Allaah Who has honoured you by enabling you to repent, We ask Allaah to guide us all to the Straight Path and to make us steadfast in following it until death.

You should note that it is not permissible for the Muslims to cheat anyone and take his money unlawfully, even if he is a kaafir.

If the Muslim commits any sin, whether stealing or anything else, then repents before the matter is referred to the judge, then he is spared the punishment in that case, and it is not permissible to punish him, because Allaah says concerning banditry (interpretation of the meaning):

The recompense of those who wage war against Allaah and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off from opposite sides, or be exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter.

Except for those who (having fled away and then) came back (as Muslims) with repentance before they fall into your power; in that case, know that Allaah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful[al-Maaidah 5:33-34]

And the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: The one who repents from sin is like one who never sinned. And the one who did not sin cannot be punished.

Al-Ikhtiyaaraat al-Fiqhiyyah, p. 510-526; al-Mughni, 12/484

It was narrated from Abd-Allaah ibn Umar (may Allaah be pleased with them both) that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said, after al-Aslami had been stoned, Avoid these immoral actions that Allaah has forbidden. Whoever does any of them, let him conceal that which Allaah has concealed, and let him repent to Allaah, for whoever tells us what he has done, we will carry out the ruling mentioned in the Book of Allaah on him. (Narrated by al-Haakim in al-Mustadrak alal-Saheehayn, 4/425; al-Bayhaqi, 8/330. This hadeeth was classed as saheeh by al-Haakim, Ibn al-Sakan and Ibn al-Mulaqqin).

Based on this, you do not have to go to the authorities and tell them about your stealing, rather it is sufficient for you to repent sincerely. But you have to return the money to its owners, because your repentance is not valid otherwise. You do not have to tell them that this is money that you stole from them, especially if you are afraid that they will put you in prison. What matters is returning the money etc to its owners. So you could put it in an envelope, or give it to someone who will give it to them, etc.

You must also return the governments money, and the money of other people. If you do not know exactly how much the money was, then estimate what you think is most likely, i.e., pay until you are sure that you have done what you must do.

If you do not know who the owners of the money are, then you can give it in charity on their behalf.

Some people have falsely concluded from verse 9:29, that Muslims are commanded to attack all non-Muslims until they pay money. In fact, such an interpretation is completely false and contradicts authentic Islamic teachings. Commenting on this verse, Shaykh Jalal Abualrub writes:

These Ayat (Quranic verses) stress the necessity of fighting against the People of the Scripture, but under what conditions? We previously established the fact that the Islamic State is not permitted to attack non-Muslims who are not hostile to Islam, who do not oppress Muslims, or try to convert Muslims by force from their religion, or expel them from their lands, or wage war against them, or prepare for attacks against them. If any of these offenses occurs, however, Muslims are permitted to defend themselves and protect their religion. Muslims are not permitted to attack non-Muslims who signed peace pacts with them, or non-Muslims who live under the protection of the Islamic State. (Abualrub, Holy Wars, Crusades, Jihad)

Likewise, the following fatwa points out that Muslims cannot attack a peaceful non-Muslim country:

Question: Is it an obligation of an Islamic state to attack the neighboring non-Muslim states and collect jizya from them? Do we see this in the example of the rightly guided Caliphs who fought against the Roman and Persian Empires without any aggression initiating from them?

If the non-Muslim country did not attack the Muslim one nor mobilize itself to prevent the practice and spread of Islam, nor transgress against mosques, nor work to oppress the Muslim people in their right to profess their faith and decry unbelief, then it is not for the Muslim country to attack that country. Jihâd of a military nature was only permitted to help Muslims defend their religion and remove oppression from the people.

The Persians and Romans did in fact aggress against Islam and attack the Muslims first.

The Chosroe of Persia had gone so far as to order his commander in Yemen specifically to kill the Prophet (peace be upon him). The Romans mobilized their forces to fight the Prophet (peace be upon him), and the Muslims confronted them in the Battles of Mutah and Tabûk during the Prophet’s lifetime.

May Allah guide us all. And May peace and blessing be upon our Prophet Muhammad. (SOURCE, emphasis added)

The above fatwa refers to the historical context in which the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) fought against other nations. The Prophet Muhammad did not initiate agression against anyone, rather he and his followers were under attack from all who sought to crush the new Islamic state. The first hostilities between the Muslims and the Roman empire began when the Prophet Muhammad’s messenger to the Ghassan tribe (a governate of the Roman empire), Al-Harith bin Umayr Al-Azdi, was tied up and beheaded (Al-Mubarakpuri, Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum, p. 383). The killing of a diplomat was an open act of war, and the Prophet Muhammad sent an armed force to confront the tribe, but the Roman empire brought in reinforcements and the resulting conflict, known as the Battle of Mut’ah, was a defeat for the Muslims. Only after this did subsequent battles between the Muslims and the Roman Empire occur, and the Muslims emerged victorious. Likewise, as mentioned in the above fatwa, hostiltiies between the Muslims and the Persians only began after the Persian emperor Chosroe ordered his governor in Yemen Badham, to kill the Prophet Muhammad pbuh, although his efforts were thwarted when the latter accepted Islam. Other non-muslim groups, such as those in Madinah, also initiated hostilities against the Muslims despite peace treaties as Shaykh Sayyid Sabiq writes:

As for fighting the Jews (People of the Scripture), they had conducted a peace pact with the Messenger after he migrated to Madinah. Soon afterwards, they betrayed the peace pact and joined forces with the pagans and the hypocrites against Muslims. They also fought against Muslims during the Battle of A`hzab , then Allah revealed [and he cites verse 9:29] (Sayyid Sabiq, Fiqhu as-Sunnah, Vol. 3, p. 80)

In light of the historical context of this verse, it becomes very clear that the verse was revealed in connection with agression initiated against Muslims. As Dr. Jamal Badawi very accurately concludes with regard to verse 9:29 and similar verses:

All of these verses, without exception, if studied carefully, address aggression and oppression committed against Muslims at the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), whether by idolatrous Arabs, some of the Jewish tribes in Madinah, or by some Christians. (SOURCE)

Therefore, the command to fight in verse 9:29 relates to those non-muslims who commit agression and not those who are committed to live in peace. The verse is subject to certain conditions that were apparent when it was implemented in the time of the Prophet Muhammad pbuh, as Shaykh Sayyid Sabiq writes:

What we have stated makes it clear that Islam did not allow the initiating of hostilities, except to: 1. repel aggression; 2. protect Islamic propagation; 3. deter Fitnah and oppression and ensure freedom of religion. In such cases, fighting becomes a necessity of the religion and one of its sacred ordainments. It is then called, Jihad. (Sayyid Sabiq, Fiqhu as-Sunnah, Vol. 3, p. 81)

The verse then proceeds to mention some issues relating to the Islamic state, and governing non-muslim citizens of the Islamic state. Dr. Maher Hathout comments on the regulations in verse 9:29:

Freedom of religion is an essential aspect in an Islamic state. One of the five pillars of Islam is zakat (almsgiving). The People of the Book (Christians and Jews) are not obliged to pay the Islamic zakat that is spent by the state for social necessities and state affairs as defined in the Quran (see 9:60). But they must pay other taxes to share in the state budget. If they refuse to pay this tax to the state and rebel against the state, then it is the obligation of the state to confront them until they pay it. This is what Caliph Abu Bakr did after the death of the Prophet, when some people refused to pay zakat. (Hathout, Jihad vs. Terrorism; US Multimedia Vera International, 2002, p.53)

The verse mentions Jizya, which is unfortunately misunderstood by some people. Like any nation, the Islamic government requires its citizens to pay taxes in return for its services. Since Muslims pay the Zakat, the non-muslim citizens are required to pay Jizya (for more information on Jizya, please refer to Jizya in Islam and Jizyah and non-muslim minorities). Dr. Monqiz As-Saqqar writes concerning the Jizya tax:

The sum of jizya was never large to the extent that the men were unable to pay. Rather, it was always available and reasonable. During the reign of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, jizya never exceeded one dinar annually and it never exceeded four dinars under the Umayyad rule. (SOURCE)

Shaykh Abu’l-Hasan Al-Mawardi (d. 1058CE) explicitly points out that the Jizya should be exacted in accordance with the means of the people, and the Imam should judge the conclude the amount to the satisfaction of the leaders of those being taxed:

The fuqaha (Jurists) differ as to the amount of the Jizya. Abu Hanifa considers that those subject to this tax are of three kinds: the rich from whom forty-eight dirhams are taken; those of average means from whom twenty four are taken, and the poor from whom twelve dirhams are taken: he thus stipulated the minimum and maximum amounts and prohibits any further judgement on behalf of those responsible for its collection. Malik, however, does not fix its minimum and maximum amount and considers that those responsible should make their own judgement as to the minimum and maximum. Ash-Shafi’i considers that the minimum is a dinar, and that it is not permitted to go below this while he does not stipulate the maximum, the latter being dependant on the ijtihad (judgement) of those responsible: the Imam, however, should try to harmonise between the different amounts, or to exact an amount in accordance with people’s means. If he has used his judgement to conclude the contract od jizyah to the satisfaction of the leaders of the people being taxed, then it becomes binding on all of them and their descendants, generation after generation, and a leader may not afterwards change this amunt, be it to decrease it or increase it. (Al-Mawardi, al-Ahkam as-Sultaniyyah, Ta-Ha Publishers Ltd. 1996, pp. 209-210)

Hence, the laws of Islam forbid Muslims from opressing non-muslims and command them to treat others with justice and compassion. In fact, the Prophet Muhammad pbuh himself forbade Muslims from harming non-muslim citizens of an islamic state or any non-muslim with whom there was an agreement of peace, as he said,

“The one who wrongs a covenanter or impairs his right or overworks him or forcibly takes something from him, I will be his prosecutor on the Day of Judgment. (Sunan Abi Dawud 170/3 no. 3052, Sunan an-Nasa’i 25/8 no. 2749, and verified by Al-Albani no. 2626).

In conclusion, verse 9:29 commands Muslims to fight against only those who initiate agression as illustated by its historical context. Muslims may only fight under strict conditions, and are commanded to live peacefully with peaceful non-muslim neighbors.

Similar Narration

Bukhari: God’s Apostle said, I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, None has the right to be worshipped but God. (Volume 4, Book 52, Number 196)

With regards to the narration, only part of it has been quoted, and the full text reads:

And the Prophet (peace be upon him) said, “I have been ordered to fight the people until they testify that there is no deity worthy of worship other than Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, establish the prayer, and pay zakat, and if they do this, then their blood and money shall be protected from me, except by an Islamic right, and their account will be with Allah.

This narration lists some of the pillars of Islam that Muslims must adhere to. The fighting being ordained here refers to the enforcement of laws and regulations within an Islamic state. Just as modern governments enforce their legal policies, so to does the Islamic state. These legal policies refer to Muslims paying their Zakat (charity tax) and abiding by the laws in an Islamic state. Those who understood the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) the best, were his companions, and we can examine their application of the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) to derive a better understanding. We find that after the death of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), many hypocrites who had pretended to be Muslim began to turn away and leave their religious duties, one example was Zakat (the charity tax). They wanted to compromise the commands of God. It was then that Abu Bakr, the First Caliph and the Caliph of that time, cited this narration to make it clear that a compromise would not be tolerated and he would fight them until they agreed to follow Islam in full. The fighting that resulted was known as the Riddah wars. Similarly, we can see that today’s governments would not tolerate it if a citizen refused to pay tax or abide by the laws of the country. If one lives in a state or country they must abide by the regulations to ensure a secure and healthy society. We should note that the ‘people’ referred to in this narration does not refer to all of humanity. As Shaykh Ahmed Ibn Taymiyyah says:

It refers to fighting those who are waging war, whom Allah has permitted us to fight. It does not refer to those who have a covenant with us with whom Allah commands us to fulfill our covenant. (Majmu` al-Fatawa 19/20)

Clearly, this narration does not refer to imposing Islam upon non-Muslims, since the Qur’an explicitly states:

2:256 There is no compulsion in religion…

Also, we have already dealt with the claims that this verse was abrogated under our discussion of verse 9:5. Once understood in their correct context, these verses and narrations become clear.

This article proves that the Quran is not abrogated and also refutes the claims of the non-muslims regarding Apostasy, Jihad and compulsion in religion.

On the site ‘Agniveer’, the author has first tried to prove that the Quran has big number of verses, which are abrogated or changed with time and based on this claim; the author used the concept of Abrogation in Quran. Based on that concept, he tried to prove that the Verse, 2:256, which says that there is no compulsion in religion, has been Changed with a better verse, 9:5, which says Slay the idolaters, wherever you find them.

Let us analyze and refute this claim of the author in detail.

Here are those verses, which talk about abrogation In Quran.

[002.106] whatever a Verse (revelation) do we abrogate or cause to be forgotten, we bring a better one or similar to it. Know you not that Allah is Able to do all things?

This verse talks about the point that Allah Himself changes or causes to change some verses in Quran.

[016:101] And when We change a Verse (of the Quran) in place of another  and Allah knows best what He sends down  they (the disbelievers) say: “You (O Muhammad [sal-Allâhu ‘aloha wa sallam]) are but a Muftari! (Forger, liar).” Nay, but most of them know not.

The two verses above are the only verses in the Quran, which talk about the concept of abrogation in the Quran

There are two interpretations of these verses of the Quran, which are acceptable by Scholars:

1. When Allah says Whatever a Verse (revelation) do we abrogate or cause to be forgotten it means that it is talking about the previous revelations, being abrogated by the Latest revelation Quran.

2. There is slight level of Abrogation in Quranic verses as well, which is proved through Sahih hadith, but the wisdom behind those verses is that as the time kept changing, Allah HIMSELF brought some better verses, based on time and situation, no one else, but Allah himself brought some better verses.

Abrogation in Quran is a very sensitive and serious topic, as it is one of the major attack methods, used by non-Muslims, to prove that the Quran is no more in its pure form. We will not provide details in this article now but there is a separate article on this issue which can be found here.

Coming to the allegations of the author of the article:

Agniveer Claim:

As per these, new verses (Nasikh) in Quran replace old verses (Mansoukh). Out of 114 Chapters of Quran, at least 71 are supposed to have been affected by this concept of abrogation. Refer al-Nasikh wal-Mansoukh (The Abrogator and the Abrogated) which was authored by the revered Muslim scholar Abil-Kasim Hibat-Allah Ibn-Salama Abi-Nasr. The book goes through every Surah (chapter) in the Quran and cites in great detail every verse that was cancelled-out/overridden by particular verses that were written later. You can find more details on abrogation from another kafir site: http://www.islamreview.com/articles/quransdoctrine.shtml (Note that it only summarizes findings from Islamic texts and has nothing new to offer on this weird topic)

Response:

Lets us analyze the claims made in this paragraph by the author:

1. He says that there is a scholar named Abil-Kasim Hibat-Allah Ibn-Salama Abi-Nasr, who wrote a book on this issue. But there is NO such scholar, among the prominent or known scholars of Islam.

2. Author said there are more than 71 surahs, which are affected by this concept of Abrogation, which is a lie. As the scholar is not among known scholars and there is no consensus among scholars that, that much number of surahs has abrogated verses, so his claims are proved to be wrong.

Agniveer Claim:

Out of 114 chapters of Quran, maximum of 43 chapters remain which can be taken as authentic.

Without getting into much details, let us come to the main point  Verse 2.256 that claims there is no compulsion in religion was abrogated and replaced by Verse 9:5  The verse of sword.

Response:

As it is proved that this verse was NOT abrogated or changed in any way, the claim of author is proved to be false.

Let us now examine the two verses, which author quoted in his article.

[002.256] there is no compulsion in religion. Verily, the Right Path has become distinct from the wrong path. Whoever disbelieves in Tâghût and believes in Allah, and then he has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that will never break. And Allah is All-Hearer, All-Knower.

The author says this verse was abrogated with the verse 9:5, which is as follows:

[009:005] Then when the Sacred Months (the 1st, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikûn (see V.2:105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in every ambush. But if they repent [by rejecting Shirk (polytheism) and accept Islamic Monotheism] and perform As-Salât (the prayers), and give Zakât (obligatory charity), then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

Now first let us examine the two verses in detail.

Explanation of verse 2:256

This is one of the verses of Quran, which is always attacked by almost all anti-Islamic sites and people.

A Careful analysis of this verse is needed.

This verse was revealed when some of Ansar, converted to Islam, they tried to force their children, to accept Islam. At that time this verse was revealed that there is no compulsion in religion.

Scholars say that this verse applies to every individual person on earth. Islam allows an individual to practice his religion freely and tells us not to force anyone to accept Islam. Any non-Muslim can live in an Islamic state freely, but he has to pay Jizya, and cannot preach religion nor can he build new worshipping places in Islamic state.

BUT Islam DOES NOT tolerates the GOVERNMENTAL or Political system of Kuffar. Islam came as a Deen + Madhab which Means it has given us a complete way of life. Prophet Muhammad was ordered to ONLY fight against the SYSTEM of Kuffar (Not against any individual non-Muslim).

The wisdom behind this concept is that, if the head of state is a Kafir, and he is in power, then he will apply his Own laws, rules and regulations, which are made by him, but if the head of state is a Muslim, then all people will have to live according to Islam, in that state. And it is obvious that the Democratic system is Evil in nature. Islam does not tolerate that the people to live under any evil system, which oppresses them.

So conclusion about this verse is that there is No compulsion in religion (only for individual) but there is compulsion in religion, against the System of state.

Explanation of verse 9:5

[009:005] Then when the Sacred Months (the 1st, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikûn (see V.2:105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in every ambush. But if they repent [by rejecting Shirk (polytheism) and accept Islamic Monotheism] and perform As-Salât (the prayers), and give Zakât (obligatory charity), then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

This verse was revealed towards the end of the revelation period and relates to a limited context. Hostilities were frozen for a three-month period during which the Arabs pledged not to wage war. Prophet Muhammad was inspired to use this period to encourage the combatants to join the Muslim ranks or, if they chose, to leave the area that was under Muslims rule; however, if they were to resume hostilities, then the Muslims would fight back until victorious. One is inspired to note that even in this context of war, the verse concludes by emphasizing the divine attributes of mercy and forgiveness. To minimize hostilities, the Quran ordered Muslims to grant asylum to anyone, even an enemy, who sought refuge. Asylum would be granted according to the customs of chivalry; the person would be told the message of the Quran but not coerced into accepting that message. Thereafter, he or she would be escorted to safety regardless of his or her religion. (9:6). (Hathout, Jihad vs. Terrorism; US Multimedia Vera International, 2002, pp.52-53, emphasis added)

Therefore, this verse once again refers to those pagans who would continue to fight after the period of peace. It clearly commands the Muslims to protect those who seek peace and are non-combatants. It is a specific verse with a specific ruling and can in no way be applied to general situations. The command of the verse was only to be applied in the event of a battle.

As Abdullah Yusuf Ali writes:The emphasis is on the first clause: it is only when the four months of grace are past, and the other partly shows no sign of desisting from their treacherous design by right conduct, that the state of war supervenes – between Faith and Unfaith. (Yusuf Ali, The Holy Quran, Text, Translation and Commentary, emphasis added)

If the pagans would not cease their hostilities towards the Muslims, then they were to be fought, especially since they were living in the land of an Islamic state.

Dr. Zakir Naik writes concerning this verse: This verse is quoted during a battle. …We know that America was once at war with Vietnam. Suppose the President of America or the General of the American Army told the American soldiers during the war: Wherever you find the Vietnamese, kill them. Today if I say that the American President said, Wherever you find Vietnamese, kill them without giving the context, I will make him sound like a butcher. But if I quote him in context, that he said it during a war, it will sound very logical, as he was trying to boost the morale of the American soldiers during the war. …Similarly in Surah Taubah chapter 9 verse 5 the Quran says, Kill the Mushriqs (pagans) where ever you find them, during a battle to boost the morale of the Muslim soldiers. What the Quran is telling Muslim soldiers is, dont be afraid during battle; wherever you find the enemies kill them. Surah Taubah chapter 9 verse 6 gives the answer to the allegation that Islam promotes violence, brutality and bloodshed. It says:

If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah; and then escort him to where he can be secure that is because they are men without knowledge. [Al-Quran 9:6]

The Quran not only says that a Mushriq seeking asylum during the battle should be granted refuge, but also that he should be escorted to a secure place. In the present international scenario, even a kind, peace-loving army General, during a battle, may let the enemy soldiers go free, if they want peace. But which army General will ever tell his soldiers, that if the enemy soldiers want peace during a battle, dont just let them go free, but also escort them to a place of security? This is exactly what Allah (swt) says in the Glorious Quran to promote peace in the world. (SOURCE, emphasis added)

Dr. Naik makes some very interesting observations about the verse. Indeed, it is truly amazing how Islam-haters will ignore Gods infinite mercy in their attempt to malign Islam. God has always given human beings a way out of any suffering, and has only ordained fighting as a last resort. Muslim scholars have written much commentary on these Quranic verses explaining the historical context in such great detail so that there may be no misconceptions. We have quoted extensively from various commentators on these verses and there is no need to repeat the same material again. We will provide one more commentary before moving on.

Professor Shahul Hameed writes on verse 9:5:This is a verse taken from Surah At-Tawba. This chapter of the Quran was revealed in the context when the newly organized Muslim society in Medina was engaged in defending themselves against the pagan aggressors. The major question dealt with here is, as to how the Muslims should treat those who break an existing treaty at will. The first clause in the verse refers to the time-honored Arab custom of a period of warning and waiting given to the offenders, after a clear violation. That is, they will be given four months time to repair the damage done or make peace. But if nothing happens after the expiry of these forbidden months, what should be done? This is what the present verse says. According to this verse, fighting must be resumed until one of the two things happens: Either the enemy should be vanquished by relentless fighting. That is what is meant by {then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem [of war]}; or they should repent, establish prayers and pay zakah, etc. This is one of those verses of the Quran which are likely to be misunderstood, if quoted out of context. We must understand that this fighting was against a people who forced the Prophet and his companions to leave not only their own homes but all their property and even their hometown of Makkah to Medina. Once the Muslims were organized into a community in those lawless times, the rules to be followed by the Muslims were clearly laid down, even in the matter of war. Since Islam is a comprehensive system, no human activity could be ignored. And given the nature of mankind, we cannot imagine a situation where fighting is completely ruled out either. As can be seen, the above injunctions on fighting is not on an individual level, but only in the case of a society that strives to flourish and thrive as a nation. But even here the norms are clear: fighting is only in self defense or for the establishment of justice; and always fighting is the last option. And no one is allowed to transgress the limits set by God. (SOURCE, emphasis added)

Ibn al-`Arabi, in his commentary on the Quran, writes: It is clear from this that the meaning of this verse is to kill the pagans who are waging war against you. (Ahkam al-Quran: 2/456, emphasis added)

Shaykh Sami al-Majid also makes some very interesting points in his discussion on this verse:

If we look at the verses in Sûrah al-Tawbah immediately before and after the one under discussion, the context of the verse becomes clear. A few verses before the one we are discussing, Allah says:

There is a declaration of immunity from Allah and His Messenger to those of the pagans with whom you have contracted mutual alliances. Go then, for four months, to and fro throughout the land. But know that you cannot frustrate Allah that Allah will cover with shame those who reject Him. [Sûrah al-Tawbah: 1-2]

In these verses we see that the pagans were granted a four month amnesty with an indication that when the four months were over, fighting would resume. However, a following verse exempts some of them from the resumption of hostilities. It reads:

Except for those pagans with whom you have entered into a covenant and who then do not break their covenant at all nor aided anyone against you. So fulfill your engagements with them until the end of their term, for Allah loves the righteous. [Sûrah al-Tawbah: 4]

So when Allah says: But when the forbidden months are past, then fight the pagans wherever you find them, and seize them and beleaguer them and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war) we must know that it is not general, since the verse above has qualified it to refer to the pagan Arabs who were actually at war with the Prophet (peace be upon him) and those who broke their covenants of peace. This is further emphasized a few verses later where Allah says:

Will you not fight people who broke their covenants and plotted to expel the Messenger and attacked you first? [Sûrah al-Tawbah: 13]

Therefore, the context of the verse within the Surah makes it clear that this refers to those who are persistent in their hostilities and attacks against Muslims, and it is applied in battle only.

Now lets see what some prominent personalities of Islam says about this issue:

Specification involves one verse limiting or restricting a general ruling found in another verse, whereas naskh involves abrogating the first verse in to (i.e., it is not applied in any circumstances or conditions). (Qadhi, An Introduction to the Sciences of the Quraan; UK Al-Hidaayah Publishing and Distribution, 1999, p. 233)

Sheikh Qadhi also explains that one of the conditions for naskh is that the two conflicting rulings apply to the same situation under the same circumstances, and hence there is no alternative understanding of the application of the verses. As he states:

Therefore, if one of the rulings can apply to a specific case, and the other ruling to a different case, this cannot be considered an example of naskh. (Qadhi, An Introduction to the Sciences of the Quraan; UK Al-Hidaayah Publishing and Distribution, 1999, p. 237)

Agniveer claim:

1. Now, in recent times, many scholars have started arguing that 2.256 was not abrogated and it remains a valid verse of Quran. But this argument is contradictory of facts and itself:

a. If indeed there is no compulsion in religion, why is punishment for apostasy DEATH in Islamic Shariat? Why does no scholar like Zakir Naik or anyone else ever proclaim that Saudi Arabia and all those countries who give death punishment for apostasy and insulting Islam/Prophet are against Islam and anti-Muslim?

Response:

Please go through this article to know the reason and explanation behind the death penalty for apostates and CONDITIONS, in which an apostate is to be put to death.

b. If indeed this peaceful verse is valid, why is propagation of non-Muslim religions prohibited in Muslim countries?

Response:

The wisdom behind this point is that Islam is the only true religion, and all other religions are falsehood. So how can Islam allow falsehood to be spread?

Take a simple example. If you are head of a school and 3 people come to you for job as mathematics teacher. You ask them the answer of 4+4, two of them reply 8, but one of them reply 10. So the question is, will you let such a teacher teach math? A teacher who does not even know the basics of math?

Agniveer claim:

c. If indeed there is no compulsion in religion, why are there countless verses asking to have hatred against non-believers and kill them or force them to become Muslim?

[5:32] if anyone killed a person not in retaliation of murder, or to spread mischief in the land  it would be as if he killed all mankind, and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind.

Which proves that no one is allowed to kill any innocent human being, whether he is Muslim or non-Muslim.

3. Force them to become Muslim

a. This point has already been explained that Islam does not allow anyone to force any individual person to forcefully accept Islam.

Agniveer claim:

2. Some other scholars say that this verse was indeed abrogated but abrogation means that in a different context of war, verse of Sword (9.5) would be valid, else in non-war situation verse of no-compulsion would be applicable. If that be so, this implies double standards. It basically means that if you are not powerful enough, let there is no compulsion. So talk peacefully, but having hatred in heart for non-Muslims as per Imran 28 and work for your agenda tactfully. But moment you attain power, verse of Sword gets applicable. Then kill the non-believers unless they ask for mercy and agree to become Muslims.

As the verse 2:256 is NOT abrogated with verse 9:5, this claim is proved to be false.

Agniveer Claim:

This has been testified in history of growth of Islam. Wherever they were powerless they talked of peace and no-compulsion. And moment they got powerful, they started forcing Islam through threat of sword.

Even in history of Quran, no-compulsion verse was revealed when Muhammad was still trying to get a set of followers for his mission. And the verse of sword was allegedly revealed after Islam had already become dominant. We suspect, by this time, Muhammad would have been imprisoned all false verse inserted in his name. Or perhaps, after his death, this verse was inserted by his followers who were killing each other on might of sword.

In any case, only a very few scholars have started claiming that no-compulsion verse is not abrogated, primarily after Islam has been in scrutiny in last few years after its extremist face came to fore. They represent a minority and no one dare condemn Muslim countries for having capital punishment for apostasy and denigrating Islam.

Response:

The answer to this is that jihad in Islamic Law can be waged for a number of reasons, but compelling people to accept Islam is simply not one of them.

The reason why jihad was first permitted in Islam was so the Muslims could defend themselves against persecution and expulsion from their homes.

Allah, Most High says: To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged  and verily Allah is Most Powerful for their aid  (They are) those who have been expelled from their homes in defiance of right  (for no cause) except that they say, Our Lord is Allah. Did Allah not check one set of people by means of another, there would surely have been pulled down monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, in which the name of Allah is commemorated in abundant measure? Allah will certainly aid those who aid his cause, for truly Allah is full of strength and might. [Surah al-Hajj: 39-40]

Many of the earliest scholars mention that these were the first verses of the Quran that were revealed regarding jihad. Thereafter the following verses were revealed:

Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loves not transgressors. And slay them wherever you catch them and drive them out from whence they drove you out, for oppression is worse than killing. But fight them not at the sacred mosque unless they fight you there. But if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith. But if they cease, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression and there prevail justice and faith in Allah. But if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression. [Surah al-Baqarah: 190-193]

From this point on, the scope of jihad was broadened from being purely for defense against direct attack to being inclusive of resistance against those who suppress the faith and deny people the freedom to choose their religion for themselves. This came later, because it is legislated for the Muslims only when they are capable of doing so. In times of weakness, Muslims may only fight against direct attack.

As for the spread of Islam, this is supposed to take place peacefully by disseminating the Message with the written and spoken word. There is no place for the use of weapons to compel people to accept Islam. Weapons can only be drawn against those who persecute and oppress others and prevent them from following their own consciences in matters of belief. The Muslims cannot just stand by while people are being denied the right to believe in Islam and their voices are being crushed.

This is the meaning of Allahs words: And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression and there prevail justice and faith in Allah. [Surah al-Baqarah: 193]

The Prophet (peace be upon him) said in his letter to the Roman governor Heracles: I invite you to accept Islam. If you accept Islam, you will find safety. If you accept Islam, Allah will give you a double reward. However, if you turn away, upon you will be the sin of your subjects. [Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim]

Once people have heard the Message without obstruction or hindrance and the proof has been established upon them, then the duty of the Muslims is done. Those who wish to believe are free to do so and those who prefer to disbelieve are likewise free to do so.

Even when the Muslims are compelled to fight and then subdue the land, their duty thereafter is to establish Allahs law in the land and uphold justice for all people, Muslim and non-Muslim. It is not their right to coerce their subjects to accept Islam against their will. Non-Muslims under Muslim rule must be allowed to remain on their own faith and must be allowed to practice the rights of their faith, though they will be expected to respect the laws of the land.

Had the purpose of jihad been to force the unbelievers to accept Islam, the Prophet (peace be upon him) would never have commanded the Muslims to refrain from hostilities if the enemy relented. He would not have prohibited the killing of women and children. However, this is exactly what he did.

During a battle, the Prophet (peace be upon him) saw people gathered together. He dispatched a man to find out why they were gathered. The man returned and said: They are gathered around a slain woman. So Allahs Messenger (peace be upon him) said: She should not have been attacked! Khalid b. al-Walid was leading the forces, so he dispatched a man to him saying: Tell Khalid not to kill women or laborers. [Sunan Abu Dawud]

Note: This should not be misconstrued to indicate that the prophet, peace be upon him, made the killing of women (and children, elders, clerics and other innocents) to be haram (forbidden) at this particular point and time. In fact, it was always haram (forbidden) and the prophet, peace be upon him, was only reconfirming what was already in place by the shari’ah (Islamic Law).[Yusuf. Estes]

Therefore, even in the heat of battle against a hostile enemy, the only people who may be attacked are those who are actually participating in the fighting.

Had the purpose of jihad been to force the unbelievers to accept Islam, the rightly guided Caliphs would not have prohibited the killing of priests and monks who refrained from fighting. However, this is exactly what they did. When the first Caliph, Abu Bakr, sent an army to Syria to fight the aggressive Roman legions, he went out to give those words of encouragement. He said: You are going to find a group of people who have devoted themselves to the worship of Allah (i.e. monks), so leave them to what they are doing.

We have demonstrated that it is a principle in Islam that there is no compulsion in religion and we have discussed the objectives of jihad. Now, we shall turn our attentions to some texts that are often misunderstood.

Agniveer Claim:

3. Please also note that Islam claims to be the only religion of world. It refuses to provide status of religion to other belief systems and puts them in forever Hell. Thus the verse on no compulsion in religion only relates to minute differences within Islamic fold and does not refer to non-Muslims.

Response:

– Islam does not considers itself the only religion, proof is here:

[003:085] and whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers.

– As Islam considers that there are other religions as well, so the claim that no compulsion point is not for non-Muslims, is proved to be false.

Agniveer Claim:

4. Some Muslim scholars say that only religions are Islam, Christianity and Judaism and Islam is the only true one among them. So perhaps some terrorists may spare Christians and Jews as per this verse, but idolaters like Hindus are for sure not under purview of this verse. This is evident from history where Islam was spread in India, merely on force of sword after killing and rapes of crores. They say Hitler performed largest genocide. But if one looks into deeds of each of the barbaric Muslim looter from Muhammad Bin Qasim to Babur to Akbar to Aurangzeb to Tipu Sultan, each of them had been miles ahead of Hitler in brutality with added flavor of sexual perversion amounting to rape and sexual punishments.

Response:

All of these claims are self made by the author and carry no weight.

Agniveer Claim:

5. As per Zakir Terrorist Naik, if a country follows Islamic law (and Islamic law is best law as per Him, since Islam is best religion!), then it is justified to kill an apostate as per Holy Quran!

Response:

Dr.Zakir Naik never gave any such justification to kill any Apostate. The issue of death for apostates has been defined already in the article.

Agniveer Claim:

In fact, Zakir Naik quotes from Quran to claim that Islam alone is religion! Hence the concept of no-compulsion is valid only for Muslims!

Response:

Dr.Zakir naik never made any such claim. The author is using selective words to prove his point right.

Conclusion

1) There is no compulsion in religion, this point is about a single individual and it has been proved that no person should or can be forced to accept Islam. An Individual can practice his belief freely.

2) Quran is not Changed/Abrogated in any possible way. The Quran is still the same, as it was, at the time of its revelation.

3) There is no death penalty in Islam for apostasy except if the person, after leaving Islam, performs act of treason.

4) The concept of Jihad in Islam is only to fight against the Evil and killing of any innocent human being Is strictly prohibited in islam.

Anas bin Malik said, “The Prophet used to visit all his wives in a round, during the day and night and they were eleven in number.” I asked Anas, “Had the Prophet the strength for it?” Anas replied, “We used to say that the Prophet was given the strength of thirty (men).” And Sa’id said on the authority of Qatada that Anas had told him about nine wives only (not eleven).

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Command a boy to pray when he reaches the age of seven years. When he becomes ten years old, then beat him for prayer.

Social Drawback: Its a simple act to snatch the liberty to think. And encapsulate violence in children.

Reply

It was narrated that Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: Teach your children to pray when they are seven years old, and smack them if they do not do so when they are ten, and separate them in their beds.[Narrated by Abu Dawood, 495; classed as saheeh by Shaykh al-Albaani in Saheeh al-Jaami, 5868]

But the educator must be merciful, forbearing, easy-going and approachable, not foul-mouthed or unkempt, arguing in a manner that is better, far removed from insulting, rebuking and beating, unless the child is one of those who willfully disobey and rejects his fathers commands and neglects his duties and does haraam things; in that case it is better to use stern measures with him, without causing him harm.

Al-Minaawi said: For a father to discipline his child when he reaches the age of discernment [??] means that he should raise him with the characteristics of the righteous believers and protect him from mixing with evildoers; he should teach him the Quraan and good manners and the language of the Arabs, let him hear the Sunnah and the sayings of the Salaf and teach him the religious rulings that he cannot do without. He should warn him then smack him if he does not pray etc. That will be better for him than giving a saa in charity, because if he teaches him properly, his actions will be among his ongoing charity, whereas the reward for a saa of charity is limited, but that will last as long as the child lives. Discipline is the nourishment of the soul, and training it for the Hereafter.

O you who believe! Ward off yourselves and your families against a Fire (Hell) [al-Tahreem 66:6  interpretation of the meaning]

Protecting yourself and your family from it means reminding them of Hell. Discipline includes preaching, warning, threatening, smacking, detaining, giving and being kind. Disciplining one who is good and noble is different from disciplining one who is difficult and ignoble.[Fayd al-Qadeer, 5/257]

Smacking is a means of correcting the child; it is not something that it wanted in and of itself, rather it is resorted to if the child is stubborn and disobedient.There is a system of punishment in Islam, and there are many punishments in Islam, such as the hadd punishments for adultery, theft, slander, etc. All of these are prescribed in order to set the people straight and put a stop to their evil.Concerning such matters the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) advised parents to deter their children from doing wrong. It was narrated from Ibn Abbaas that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: Hang your whip where the members of the household can see it, for that will discipline them.[Narrated by al-Tabaraani, 10/248; its isnaad was classed as hasan by al-Haythami in Majma al-Zawaaid, 8/106, Al-Albaani said in Saheeh al-Jaami, 4022, it is hasan].

So raising children should be a balance between encouragement and warning. The most important element of all is making the environment in which the children live a good one, by providing the means whereby they may be guided; this means that their educators should be religiously committed, including their parents. One of the ways in which a parent may be successful in raising his children is to use a cassette player to play tapes of teachings, Quraan recitation, khutbahs and lessons of scholars, for there are many available.

A group of people from ‘Ukl (or ‘Uraina) tribe —-but I think he said that they were from ‘Ukl came to Medina and (they became ill, so) the Prophet ordered them to go to the herd of (Milch) she-camels and told them to go out and drink the camels’ urine and milk (as a medicine). So they went and drank it, and when they became healthy, they killed the shepherd and drove away the camels. This news reached the Prophet early in the morning, so he sent (some) men in their pursuit and they were captured and brought to the Prophet before midday. He ordered to cut off their hands and legs and their eyes to be branded with heated iron pieces and they were thrown at Al-Harra, and when they asked for water to drink, they were not given water. (Abu Qilaba said, “Those were the people who committed theft and murder and reverted to disbelief after being believers (Muslims), and fought against Allah and His Apostle”).

Social Drawback: Now Muslim usually tries to humiliate people of other religion that they drink Cow Piss , etc. But they are themselves following a similar way to medicate themselves.

Reply

let us see what science is doing.

a) What is Premarin(e)?

Premarin® stands for Pregnant Mares’ Urine (PREgnant MARes’ urINe); PMU for short (we spell it both ways, with an “e”, PREgnant MARes’ urINE which is the older name used in Canada, and without — which is the more popular recent spelling, and the one that is a U.S. registered trademark).

Premarin (including Prempro, Premphase, Prempac, and Premelle) is a drug made up of conjugated estrogens obtained from the urine of pregnant mares — put out in many forms (pills, creams, injections, patches, vaginal rings) and is used to reduce the symptoms of menopause in women or women who have had a hysterectomy. It is also prescribed to nearly eliminate the risk of osteoporosis (the brittling of bones) and reduce the chance of heart disease in women over 50.

RIYADH  Saudi inventors received eight awards in the ITEX 2009 exhibition held in Kuala Lumpur between 15 and 17 May, with one of the winning inventions – microparticles in camels urine to treat cancer by Dr. Faten Khorsheed from King Abdul Aziz University in Jeddah  chosen as one of the six best out of 600 inventions presented to win the exhibitions Asia Cup.

Dr. Khalid Abdullah Al-Sebti, Deputy Education Minister and Secretary of the Mawhebah program to support talented persons, said the eight winning Saudi inventors reflected the scientific and technological development of the Kingdom and its progress in becoming a community of knowledge and economic advancement.

ITEX is an annual exhibition showcasing new inventions, technologies and products, with the aim of securing investment and partners in manufacturing and commercialization projects.

The exhibition displays inventions and innovations by universities, research institutions, and individual inventors from around the world.  SPA

Cancer cures do not generally conjure up visions of camels urine, but a Saudi doctor has just won a prestigious award for using it to do just that.

Faten Khorsheed, from King Abdul Aziz University in Jeddah, was chosen as having one of the six best innovations out of 600 entrants in the Asia Cup at the ITEX technology and education expo in Kuala Lumpur, the daily Saudi Gazette reported on Wednesday.

I) and Lastly It is mentioned in Ash-Shifa of Qadi Iyad, translated by Aisha Bewley, p 348-351 SECTION 3:The Prophet’s states with respect to worldly matters

We will examine the Prophet’s worldly states with respect to his beliefs, reports and actions. As for worldly beliefs, one aspect of his state in this regard is that it was possible for him to believe something concerning the matters of this world based on one interpretation when the opposite was true, or to be subject to doubt or supposition regarding them. These matters are not the same as mat­ters of the Shari’a.Rafi’ ibn Khadij said that the Messenger of Allah came to Madina while they were pollinating the dates and asked, “What are you doing?” They told him and he said, “Perhaps it would be better not to do it.” So they left it and there were less dates. They mentioned that to him and he said, “I am a man. If I command you to do something in your deen, then do it. If I tell you somethingfrom opinion, I am but a man.”‘ Anas added, “You know better the affairs ofyour world.” Another variant has, “I had an opinion, so do not blame me for having an opinion.”In the hadith from Ibn ‘Abbas we find, “I am a man. What I tell you from Allah is true. In what I say from myself, I am but a man. I can err and I can beright.” This is what he said about himself regarding his opinions about the affairs of this world. That is not the case with any words which came from him or his ijtihad when laying down the Shari’a or making a sunna.1

Hot Links

Â Following are some of my random posts regarding the daughters. Â Contents a) What if the guardian is preventing the woman to marry the suitor of her choice who is suitable for her, and forcing her to marry the man of his interest? b) An interesting narration about a marriage where a girl was not willing to Marry Ibn Umar ra. c) How do we know about a conse […]

Â Omnipresence (Haazir Naazir) of Prophet peace be upon him according to Quran and Classical Mufassireen. Â The commentaries of the classical Mufassireen over three verses of the Quran will clear this issue inshaAllah. Â Verse no. 1 Â Allah says in Surah Yusuf verse 102. Â âThat is of thenews of the Ghayb (Unseen) which We reveal to you. You were not (presen […]

Â Smack Down of Fakhr al Din Razi against the Modern day Sufis. Â Contents Â 1. Knowledge of the Qiyamah is only known to Allah, not the Prophet peace be upon him. 2. Refuting the notion that Sawad al Adam means follow the majority of the people. 3. Refuting the saying, If you ask the idol then it is shirk, if you ask the Prophets then it is not. 4. Refuting […]

Â Article Contents 1. No shyness in asking the question regarding religion. -Imam ad-Darami narrated a) Abdul Mannan Raasikh said, which means: Â 2. Is it permissible for a man to look at other than the face and hands of the woman he wishes to propose to, such as looking at her hair, neck, shins, feet etc. a) Ibn al Qayyim said: b) Ibn Qudama al Hanbali said […]

Â Aisha ra reported: Abu Bakr ra came to see me and I had two girls with me from among the girls of the Ansar and they were singing what the Ansar recited to one another at the Battle of Bu'ath. They were not, however, singing girls. Upon this Abu Bakr said: What I (the playing of) this wind instrument of Satan in the house of the Messenger of Allah (ï·º) […]

Â The Sufi Ahmad Sarhandi Mujaddid Alif Thani on celebrations of Mawlid. Â He was asked that some people (a person Meer Muhammad Aziz) saw Prophet peace be upon him in dream and He peace be upon him was very happy due to their celebrations and Sama in Mawlid un Nabi. Â Ahmad Sarhandi rejected those dreams and said Satan is worst of the enemy, so these dreams […]